Obama Addresses Guvs on Global Warming

Obama can only do so much.. i agree with everyone else, the people of the US need to take a step in the right direction as well.

I think it's great Obama has implemented a plan to reduce or slow down global warming, but it is on the citizens to do their part as well! And I feel it is very important to get young individuals involved! That's why I feel this 99problems.org is a great organization to see what problems are going on in our nation.

No one organization can give him the answers he needs to create a board of people that analyze the problem.

I hope we can get some cleaner air to come about in LA!

The is no scientific proof that global warming is caused by CO2. NONE. That's real science.

The global warming consensus reminds me of the flat earth consensus.

"President elect Barack Obama is listening to actual experts from academia rather than "think tanks" funded by politically motivated individuals. Do you have data from peer reviewed sources that overturns fundamental physics?"

Unlike the Obama/Gore/liberal "settled consensus science" viewpoint on Global Warming, physics is still peer reviewable.

The "actual experts"; are you in fact referring to his meeting with Al Gore this week?

Restoring America's leadership on global warming is no easy task. US leadership has been lost over a sustained period as the current Administration has failed to make progress on global warming. (Sadly this is time we don't have.) So, becoming a leader isn't something that can be done overnight, but it will need to start from day one. President-elect Obama has already signaled that he will Restore American Leadership on Global Warming. So, what more does he have to do?

Well, a coalition of groups -- including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- has just released a detailed plan Transition to Green which outlines actions for the new Administration and Congress on environmental issues.

I live in Mason County Michigan where a proposal is under consideration to give British Petroleum nearly 10,000 acres of national forest, to level, so they can erect a wind farm. This forest borders Lake Michigan and the lower peninsulas only designated wilderness area- The Nordhouse Dunes. There is also a proposal to give part of a national forest away to a Spanish wind company in the Green Mountains of Vermont. I believe big business has found " the goose that lays the golden egg". With only 13% of our forest system east of the Mississippi how long can it take before it is decimated. Why would our government be so protective of ANWAR, a place few Americans will ever visit,yet even consider chopping up the forest system?

The Scientific data is there! Read it people! Just because you choose to ignore and deny the problem, it doesn't mean it is not real or that it will go away. A theory in general is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something that you cannot disprove or dismiss. It cannot be proven true because Science cannot prove anything to be true. Science can only disprove information. A theory is a proposed explanation. It is tested and generally accepted. Do you not think that the "theory" of gravity is true, or the theory of relativity, or the quantum theory, or the theory of evolution? It tends to perturb me to see so many people base their opinions on their own so called "common sense." If you are going to formulate an opinion, then why not research it and use Scientific evidence to back up your claims. Better yet, leave it to the Biologists and Climatologists that have done so already! Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and needed gas, but even naturally occuring things are only favorable in moderation and Carbon is not even the largest greenhouse gas problem. It is only one of the many gases responsible. The glaciers are indeed disappearing in the Alps and throughout the world. In response to the post on here that claims that the temperature changes being observed today are small compared to the previous temperature changes that melted the large glaciers of the northern United States, you're right! Lets keep changing the temperatures. They're relatively negligible anyway right? Wrong! A little change in average temperatures can create large problems. There was only a 5-9 degree difference in average temperatures during the last ice age that caused those glaciers of the Northern United States that you mentioned. Shall we just continue to act irresponsibly, take our chances, and hope for the best? We know what the average temperatures were before instruments that recorded them were available due to ice core samples and tree rings. Obama's statement is absolutely correct! I wouldn't go as far as to say I am in agreement with the Kyoto Protocol due to the detrimental economic effect it would have, but I think that we should rely more on renewable and sustainable energy resources.

The Scientific data is there! Read it people! Just because you choose to ignore and deny the problem, it doesn't mean it is not real or that it will go away. A theory in general is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something that you cannot disprove or dismiss. It cannot be proven true because Science cannot prove anything to be true. Science can only disprove information. A theory is a proposed explanation. It is tested and generally accepted. Do you not think that the "theory" of gravity is true, or the theory of relativity, or the quantum theory, or the theory of evolution? It tends to perturb me to see so many people base their opinions on their own so called "common sense." If you are going to formulate an opinion, then why not research it and use Scientific evidence to back up your claims. Better yet, leave it to the Biologists and Climatologists that have done so already! Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and needed gas, but even naturally occuring things are only favorable in moderation and Carbon is not even the largest greenhouse gas problem. It is only one of the many gases responsible. The glaciers are indeed disappearing in the Alps and throughout the world. In response to the post on here that claims that the temperature changes being observed today are small compared to the previous temperature changes that melted the large glaciers of the northern United States, you're right! Lets keep changing the temperatures. They're relatively negligible anyway right? Wrong! A little change in average temperatures can create large problems. There was only a 5-9 degree difference in average temperatures during the last ice age that caused those glaciers of the Northern United States that you mentioned. Shall we just continue to act irresponsibly, take our chances, and hope for the best? We know what the average temperatures were before instruments that recorded them were available due to ice core samples and tree rings. Obama's statement is absolutely correct! I wouldn't go as far as to say I am in agreement with the Kyoto Protocol due to the detrimental economic effect it would have, but I think that we should rely more on renewable and sustainable energy resources.

Facts: global warming is a non-issue. Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Cleaner air is a good thing. But let us not force more manufacturing out of the country with overzealous and very costly regulations.

What we really need is a global reduction of humans by 50% or more.

To hope,

I agree there are real and severe ecological problems that need our attention, like preserving the rain forest and controlling dangerous pollutants. The US is far and away the leader in industrial pollution control. CO2, however, is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas essential to all life on this planet. We're wasting valuable time and resources by focusing our attention on a non-issue. Want to think globally and act locally? Recycle. Rake your leaves instead of using a blower. Walk to the store. Turn down your thermostat. Inflate your tires! Car pool. Use rechargable batteries. All good things. But a carbon tax that will harm the US economy to save the planet? Pure nonsense.

And yet, it doesn't even matter what Woody's opinion on the matter happens to be. The rest of the world is moving ahead with the plans while Woody can sit and steam about it in his hut in the mountains of the Ozarks.

Hope you like it up there, Woody!

-------

I'm just asking questions. Aren't you the least bit interested in the foundation of this so called movement? Or are you just looking for something to believe in? Are you at least interested in the social and economic ramifications of unilaterally reducing our carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels?

Question time!

1) Which country is the largest emitter of atmospheric CO2? Hint: They're bringing a new coal-fired power plant online every week.

2) Conituation question: Why would this country invest so much in an energy source and then voluntarily decrease its usage over the next few years? Trick question. They won't!

"Don't stop - believing" - Journey

why are the commentors so negative? this a great idea. Its time to wake up and face the problem instead of ignoring it like George Bush did. Yeah it may not work at first but it will open up new doors to things that will. Its too late to stop it but we can slow it down. People say its just climate change & global warming is not real. There are billions of cars, hundred of thousand of planes, hundred of thousand of trains, and millions of factories. to top that where are cutting down large amounts of forests in Africa and Indonesia. Just because of $. You really think all that doesn't affect our planet?

And yet, it doesn't even matter what Woody's opinion on the matter happens to be. The rest of the world is moving ahead with the plans while Woody can sit and steam about it in his hut in the mountains of the Ozarks.

Hope you like it up there, Woody!

The "scientists" who are bought and paid for by the companies are not credible.

Hope that helps woody.
------

Hi Ryan. Good to hear from you. However, this was not your best effort. Are we to dismiss the findings of scientists based on how they are funded? There is no bigger financer of global warming research than the US Government. Schmidt, Mann and Hansen, the NOAA and GHCN are all "bought and paid for" by us taxpayers. They have a vested interest in keeping themselves on the front page. Is that why they come up with the results they do? I certainly hope not, but by your reasoning that must be the case.

Please do yourself a favor and find the answers to the other questions I've posed, particularly the technical ones. But be warned, you may not like what you find.

I looked at the World Glacier Monitoring Service website to satisfy my curiosity and I could find no mention of melting occuring faster than any time in the last 5000 years. While researching I did however find an interesting article in the Anchorage Daily News about how the brutal winter of 2007-2008 caused most of the glaciers in Alaska to have a positive mass balance for the first time in over 200 years.
Very interesting.

"1) Who determines who is a "credible climatologist" and who is not?"

The "scientists" who are bought and paid for by the companies are not credible.

Hope that helps woody.

One more thing, len. I have an engineering degree so please enlighten me with your knowledge of non-linear dynamic systems. I'm all ears.

Dear len,

Thanks for the typical and unsurprising condescending response. Care to answer any of the questions I posed? I would like to add another a few more:

1) Who determines who is a "credible climatologist" and who is not?

2) Where does one obtain a degree in climatology?

3) Where is the CO2 warming signature in the lower tropical troposhere?

Sorry but there is no scientific basis to support CO2 as the DRIVER of climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is just one small cog in the giant climatic machine.